1. Blue Gold, Directed by Sam Bozzo, Released 2008
2. This film discusses the global water problem. The amount of potable water on the planet is diminishing while the global demand for clean water increases due to increasing population. Additionally, in a hasty effort to get water to more people, we have allowed private water companies to take control of water in third world regions which is having profoundly negative effects on the people there. Privatized water in these regions is so expensive that many of the people cannot afford it and must drink whatever water they can find, often with high risk of disease. Also, privatized water has been shown in many cases to be of lower quality than non-privatized water, so even the people who can afford the water are no better off. In the mean time, the industrial world is turning more and more potable water into undrinkable polluted water, reducing the availability of water throughout the world.
3. This film covers a very multifaceted problem. In the political spectrum, this film covers the role of international organizations like the WTO in privatizing the developing world’s water. The WTO puts extreme trade pressure on nations to privatize their water, and it is always one of the three largest multinationals that gets the deal. After they move in, water quality often goes down and price goes up. This causes economic problems and health problems for the people there. Health issues increase with lower water quality and people are forced to find other sources of they cannot afford the water or live in extreme poverty because they must purchase the water. In the legal spectrum, the water companies wield so much power they can even make things like collecting rain water illegal for the citizens of the nations in which they operate, as was the case in Bolivia (see <Flow>). There is a huge environmental problem that feeds the water crisis. We are polluting otherwise drinkable water through industrial and residential practices. The number of man-made chemicals found in water sources that used to be pristine is staggering, and it is forcing people to go to other sources for their drinking water, applying additional stress to already overworked water systems. If you look at the Aral Sea for example, it is currently a desert, but before the over irrigation of desert farmlands, it was a sea. Not a small lake, but a body large enough to be called a sea. It is now a huge basin of desert, a testament to the very human cause of the water problem.
4. The depth with which many of the issues described in the movie were pursued was probably the most compelling feature of the film .While this was true of the film in general, an example might be helpful. One such example was how the third world is losing water to the first world. This is clearer when you see large nations claiming more than a fair share of water resources along borders or the even more obvious case of water being bottled in one place and shipped thousands of miles somewhere else. However the film even goes so far as to note that in multiple cases, water intensive industries are started in arid regions and the water that is either in the product or was used to make can be considered as a loss to the manufacturing nation and a gain to the importing nation. The specific example given was roses grown in Africa, which are heavily watered so they can survive the climate. Those roses, which contain water, are then shipped to America for example where the water is lost to evaporation and the like. In this way, water is discretely exported from the third world to the wealthier nations.
5. The film was a little extreme. While it gave solutions to some problems, they were often very “radial” not in they were new or crazy ideas, but that they involved a complete change in practice. For example, the film completely demonized privatized water and effectively was calling for the complete disbanding of these companies, at least in the third world. However, it is completely possible that with appropriate regulation, these companies might be able to do an adequate job in the third world. Why is it that they are able to serve the rich nations in a suitable manner, but they are supposedly inherently incapable of serving the third world? I would argue that this is due to the “weakness” of the governments there I that they are held subservient to large corporations, or more realistically, organizations like the WTO. Again, with appropriate regulation this might not be the case.
6. The focus of this film is water, and its consumption in all regards including agriculture, direct human consumption, and industrial uses. What I would personally find interesting is a calculation of all the potable water on earth. Firstly, how much of it is there? Then, how much would need to be used to hydrate everyone on earth adequately? How much does industry use? Agriculture, etc.? How much, if any is left over, and how much water must remain for our water sources not to suffer damage like the Aral Sea and Colorado River? Basically, are we truly doomed, or is there enough water to go around if it is properly regulated and distributed?
7. This film is good for both academic and causal audiences. It addresses a very important issue that is not just plaguing the third world, but is hitting the U.S. as well and people should be aware of it. More so, it describes the problem in simple terms on which it then elaborates. In this way it is able to address audiences with little to no experience, and gets everyone onto the same page so it can go into further detail which is great for both audiences as well. The film takes advantage of the fact that it has a video component by showing pictures of the people who are suffering and showing the degradation of land as a result of water misuse. It finds a way to have a visual representation of most of the problems described which greatly benefits the casual audience, but is useful and compelling for academic audiences as well. It reminds the viewer that this is a human problem. Given the ease with which people can reduce their water usage, I think this film would be able to make people change their practices towards water conservation. However, given the magnitude of the problem, that is probably the most the film will get out of the general public.
8. The primary course of action suggested by the film is the de-privatization of water in the third world. By restoring or creating public water works, the film states that the water issue may be alleviated. Furthermore, the creation of cheap, easy, and free pumps for areas to tap into deep water reserves is suggested. One of the great things about the film is that it recognizes population as a big issue and states that populations in water poor regions need to stay low out of necessity and that the world population needs to come down as well. There is a limit to how much water can be used sustainably and we are reaching, or have already reached it.
9. To increase its educational value, the film could include more of the solution side to the problem. It spends most of its time talking about the problem, and though it does make suggestions for solutions, more of these would have been helpful. By giving people more options for solutions, you encourage the implementation of solutions as well as the development of new solutions and the improvement of existing solutions.
Blue Gold
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. Blue Gold, Directed by Sam Bozzo, Released 2008
2. This film discusses the global water problem. The amount of potable water on the planet is diminishing while the global demand for clean water increases due to increasing population. Additionally, in a hasty effort to get water to more people, we have allowed private water companies to take control of water in third world regions which is having profoundly negative effects on the people there. Privatized water in these regions is so expensive that many of the people cannot afford it and must drink whatever water they can find, often with high risk of disease. Also, privatized water has been shown in many cases to be of lower quality than non-privatized water, so even the people who can afford the water are no better off. In the mean time, the industrial world is turning more and more potable water into undrinkable polluted water, reducing the availability of water throughout the world.
3. This film covers a very multifaceted problem. In the political spectrum, this film covers the role of international organizations like the WTO in privatizing the developing world’s water. The WTO puts extreme trade pressure on nations to privatize their water, and it is always one of the three largest multinationals that gets the deal. After they move in, water quality often goes down and price goes up. This causes economic problems and health problems for the people there. Health issues increase with lower water quality and people are forced to find other sources of they cannot afford the water or live in extreme poverty because they must purchase the water. In the legal spectrum, the water companies wield so much power they can even make things like collecting rain water illegal for the citizens of the nations in which they operate, as was the case in Bolivia (see <Flow>). There is a huge environmental problem that feeds the water crisis. We are polluting otherwise drinkable water through industrial and residential practices. The number of man-made chemicals found in water sources that used to be pristine is staggering, and it is forcing people to go to other sources for their drinking water, applying additional stress to already overworked water systems. If you look at the Aral Sea for example, it is currently a desert, but before the over irrigation of desert farmlands, it was a sea. Not a small lake, but a body large enough to be called a sea. It is now a huge basin of desert, a testament to the very human cause of the water problem.
4. The depth with which many of the issues described in the movie were pursued was probably the most compelling feature of the film .While this was true of the film in general, an example might be helpful. One such example was how the third world is losing water to the first world. This is clearer when you see large nations claiming more than a fair share of water resources along borders or the even more obvious case of water being bottled in one place and shipped thousands of miles somewhere else. However the film even goes so far as to note that in multiple cases, water intensive industries are started in arid regions and the water that is either in the product or was used to make can be considered as a loss to the manufacturing nation and a gain to the importing nation. The specific example given was roses grown in Africa, which are heavily watered so they can survive the climate. Those roses, which contain water, are then shipped to America for example where the water is lost to evaporation and the like. In this way, water is discretely exported from the third world to the wealthier nations.
5. The film was a little extreme. While it gave solutions to some problems, they were often very “radial” not in they were new or crazy ideas, but that they involved a complete change in practice. For example, the film completely demonized privatized water and effectively was calling for the complete disbanding of these companies, at least in the third world. However, it is completely possible that with appropriate regulation, these companies might be able to do an adequate job in the third world. Why is it that they are able to serve the rich nations in a suitable manner, but they are supposedly inherently incapable of serving the third world? I would argue that this is due to the “weakness” of the governments there I that they are held subservient to large corporations, or more realistically, organizations like the WTO. Again, with appropriate regulation this might not be the case.
6. The focus of this film is water, and its consumption in all regards including agriculture, direct human consumption, and industrial uses. What I would personally find interesting is a calculation of all the potable water on earth. Firstly, how much of it is there? Then, how much would need to be used to hydrate everyone on earth adequately? How much does industry use? Agriculture, etc.? How much, if any is left over, and how much water must remain for our water sources not to suffer damage like the Aral Sea and Colorado River? Basically, are we truly doomed, or is there enough water to go around if it is properly regulated and distributed?
7. This film is good for both academic and causal audiences. It addresses a very important issue that is not just plaguing the third world, but is hitting the U.S. as well and people should be aware of it. More so, it describes the problem in simple terms on which it then elaborates. In this way it is able to address audiences with little to no experience, and gets everyone onto the same page so it can go into further detail which is great for both audiences as well. The film takes advantage of the fact that it has a video component by showing pictures of the people who are suffering and showing the degradation of land as a result of water misuse. It finds a way to have a visual representation of most of the problems described which greatly benefits the casual audience, but is useful and compelling for academic audiences as well. It reminds the viewer that this is a human problem. Given the ease with which people can reduce their water usage, I think this film would be able to make people change their practices towards water conservation. However, given the magnitude of the problem, that is probably the most the film will get out of the general public.
8. The primary course of action suggested by the film is the de-privatization of water in the third world. By restoring or creating public water works, the film states that the water issue may be alleviated. Furthermore, the creation of cheap, easy, and free pumps for areas to tap into deep water reserves is suggested. One of the great things about the film is that it recognizes population as a big issue and states that populations in water poor regions need to stay low out of necessity and that the world population needs to come down as well. There is a limit to how much water can be used sustainably and we are reaching, or have already reached it.
9. To increase its educational value, the film could include more of the solution side to the problem. It spends most of its time talking about the problem, and though it does make suggestions for solutions, more of these would have been helpful. By giving people more options for solutions, you encourage the implementation of solutions as well as the development of new solutions and the improvement of existing solutions.